From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH] emulator: inc/dec can have lock prefix Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:58:54 +0300 Message-ID: <20100713135854.GB1891@redhat.com> References: <20100713134023.GA1891@redhat.com> <4C3C6FF9.6090301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59915 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756210Ab0GMN64 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:58:56 -0400 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6DDwtRC018716 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 09:58:56 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C3C6FF9.6090301@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:54:01PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/13/2010 04:40 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >Mark inc (0xfe/0 0xff/0) and dec (0xfe/1 0xff/1) as lock prefix capable. > > > >Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov > >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c > >index 255473f..b38bd8b 100644 > >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c > >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/emulate.c > >@@ -345,10 +345,10 @@ static u32 group_table[] = { > > DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM, DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM, > > 0, 0, 0, 0, > > [Group4*8] = > >- ByteOp | DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM, ByteOp | DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM, > >+ ByteOp | DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM | Lock, ByteOp | DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM | Lock, > > 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, > > [Group5*8] = > >- DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM, DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM, > >+ DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM | Lock, DstMem | SrcNone | ModRM | Lock, > > SrcMem | ModRM | Stack, 0, > > SrcMem | ModRM | Stack, SrcMemFAddr | ModRM | ImplicitOps, > > SrcMem | ModRM | Stack, 0, > > Right. Please post a regression test as well (kvm/test/x86/emulator.c). > OK. > Did this occur on a real workload? > Yes, RHEL6 guest on RHEL6 host without ept. -- Gleb.